Brexit matters

[edwin_m]

The solution would have been to either make leaving the EU a cross-party activity and/or hold a second referendum (hold on at the back there) to decide HOW we leave. Don't include "actually we want to stay" as an option, but there could easily have been a vote on:
- leave, but stay in the customs union / single market
- leave, but keep out fish
- leave, and refuse to deal with the EU

Such a vote would have helped reunify the population as it would be both sides making a decision on how to proceed. Sure a load of people would have spoilt their ballots (remainers not wanting to accept the first result / leavers outraged at the fact their interpretation of leaving wasn't being enacted immediately), but it would have been the time for the country to come back together and examine the options.

I don't think that works. You need to give people the option of remaining in the second referendum if they prefer that to whatever option is chosen.

It's like if a family agrees to buy a cake, but there's only enough money to buy one, and one family member then decides it will be a fruit cake. But other family members may loathe fruit cake and rather spend the money on something else instead.

 

[VauxhallandI]

First Brexit bonus has just landed.

Running a trial of some software that is owned by a Dutch company. Need the remote support for this 30 day trial to be security cleared; that is no longer allowed. No security clearance for non UK residents.

Maybe there is displaced fruit picker who lost out to a Romanian we can get to do the job; he could learn the software in a an afternoon after all he is English therefore amazing.

Thanks Brexit, now to open the lid on all our other contracts that are screwed

 

[Typhoon]

First Brexit bonus has just landed.

Running a trial of some software that is owned by a Dutch company. Need the remote support for this 30 day trial to be security cleared; that is no longer allowed. No security clearance for non UK residents.

Maybe there is displaced fruit picker who lost out to a Romanian we can get to do the job; he could learn the software in a an afternoon after all he is English therefore amazing.

Thanks Brexit, now to open the lid on all our other contracts that are screwed

I thought that had been sorted. Aren't we retraining displaced ballet dancers to cover cases like that? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/fatima-ballet-dancer-job-cyber-government-campaign-a4568641.html

 

[dosxuk]

I don't think that works. You need to give people the option of remaining in the second referendum if they prefer that to whatever option is chosen.

It's like if a family agrees to buy a cake, but there's only enough money to buy one, and one family member then decides it will be a fruit cake. But other family members may loathe fruit cake and rather spend the money on something else instead.

The point is you have a vote to decide what cake to get. You've decided on getting the cake, now it's time to decide what sort, and there's no point the people who didn't want to get a cake just saying "we shouldn't have got a cake", if they've got to have cake at least they then get some sort say in what sort it is.

What we had is what you suggest, one person deciding we should get fruit cake and everyone being unhappy about it but being told it is the will of the group and we've had our say in the matter and that was that.

 

[RT4038]

I don't think that works. You need to give people the option of remaining in the second referendum if they prefer that to whatever option is chosen.

It's like if a family agrees to buy a cake, but there's only enough money to buy one, and one family member then decides it will be a fruit cake. But other family members may loathe fruit cake and rather spend the money on something else instead.

Having a second referendum on whether the UK stayed on the EU was never going to happen. If that had gone for Remain would we have had another one? (best of three?). If it was necessary to ask those preferences, then these should have been options in the first referendum.
In your analogy - the family has decided buy cake. Before that decision was taken, the process for deciding which type of cake should have been established first.
However, buying a cake is not that complex. Whether a referendum should have been held on such a complex thing as EU membership is a moot point.

It all rather points to a failure in our political system - the electorates view of the EU was not being represented in Parliament. Whatever the real truth, actions of the EU were nearly always presented as bad - forced upon us - and we never embraced the European way of doing things (eg the social and health systems by pseudo-insurance, interpreting legislation and rules for our own benefit etc). Some of the pillars of the EU have not much benefitted ordinary UK citizens - free movement of labour, fisheries policy. For whatever reason, the UK appears to have been more open to other EU citizens exploiting their rights rather than the other way round. I know there are many Brits who have made lifestyle choices to live in EU countries, but not so many are engaged in the ordinary workplaces and businesses there.

Much of the benefits of EU membership are largely invisible - the membership cost rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher meant that the EU did not spend lots of money (and therefore advertise) in the UK on projects. A triumph of retaining our sovereignty over where money is spent (or not), but sowing seeds for this referendum result.

 

[ainsworth74]

the electorates view of the EU was not being represented in Parliament

Of course the majority of the electorate didn't actually care about the EU until the referendum campaign kicked off. Grumbled about bits of it of course (as I'm sure many who voted Remain did and do!) but in terms of issues the EU and membership barely registered before 2016.

 

[edwin_m]

Having a second referendum on whether the UK stayed on the EU was never going to happen. If that had gone for Remain would we have had another one? (best of three?). If it was necessary to ask those preferences, then these should have been options in the first referendum.
In your analogy - the family has decided buy cake. Before that decision was taken, the process for deciding which type of cake should have been established first.
However, buying a cake is not that complex. Whether a referendum should have been held on such a complex thing as EU membership is a moot point.

It all rather points to a failure in our political system - the electorates view of the EU was not being represented in Parliament. Whatever the real truth, actions of the EU were nearly always presented as bad - forced upon us - and we never embraced the European way of doing things (eg the social and health systems by pseudo-insurance, interpreting legislation and rules for our own benefit etc). Some of the pillars of the EU have not much benefitted ordinary UK citizens - free movement of labour, fisheries policy. For whatever reason, the UK appears to have been more open to other EU citizens exploiting their rights rather than the other way round. I know there are many Brits who have made lifestyle choices to live in EU countries, but not so many are engaged in the ordinary workplaces and businesses there.

Much of the benefits of EU membership are largely invisible - the membership cost rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher meant that the EU did not spend lots of money (and therefore advertise) in the UK on projects. A triumph of retaining our sovereignty over where money is spent (or not), but sowing seeds for this referendum result.

Ideally the details of leaving should have been established before the referendum, agreed in principle with the EU and referred to in the referendum question. Putting options in the referendum would be more difficult, probably requiring some kind of single transferrable vote, and might have been somewhat stretching the public's knowledge of such detailed issues.

My suggestion of a second referendum was to address the situation when neither of these was done, of having a decision in principle to leave without any details of the terms. In that situation the second referendum would have to include a remain option, as that might have been (and probably would have been) more popular than any single leave option.

 

[ainsworth74]

My suggestion of a second referendum was to address the situation when neither of these was done, of having a decision in principle to leave without any details of the terms. In that situation the second referendum would have to include a remain option, as that might have been (and probably would have been) more popular than any single leave option.

Which is of course unfair to those who do want to leave. Any second referendum would have had to be on the type of Brexit only (which I think is the only fair option that respects the result of the first referendum which was to leave) or would have required some sort of STV mechanism to ensure that the those who want to leave are not disadvantaged by having several options on the ballot but only one remain option to hoover up all the remain votes.

 

[najaB]

Which is of course unfair to those who do want to leave. Any second referendum would have had to be on the type of Brexit only (which I think is the only fair option that respects the result of the first referendum which was to leave) or would have required some sort of STV mechanism to ensure that the those who want to leave are not disadvantaged by having several options on the ballot but only one remain option to hoover up all the remain votes.

The simple way around that would be that Remain would only 'win' if it had a supermajority - e.g. three fifths of the total vote.

 

[dosxuk]

Ideally the details of leaving should have been established before the referendum, agreed in principle with the EU and referred to in the referendum question. Putting options in the referendum would be more difficult, probably requiring some kind of single transferrable vote, and might have been somewhat stretching the public's knowledge of such detailed issues.

My suggestion of a second referendum was to address the situation when neither of these was done, of having a decision in principle to leave without any details of the terms. In that situation the second referendum would have to include a remain option, as that might have been (and probably would have been) more popular than any single leave option.

That is exactly why there was no discussion on what leaving would actually entail before the referendum. The Leave organisers knew they could never win with any single option and relied on letting people think that Leave meant whatever Leave meant to that person. Keep the descriptions very fluid and imprecise and refuse to let anyone nail you down on the exact consequences. Launch Project Fear to throw a catchy phrase back at anyone who dares to imply there could be negative consequences to any of the options, and then explain that you're not going to do that exact option if they continue to question your denial. As soon as you allow your options to be written down all those tactics will fail and your vote will be split.

There was plenty of people who voted leave in the hope of just getting out of the political side of the EU but staying in the common market, same as there was plenty of people who voted to leave the whole lot and never turn back. The Leave lot knew they had to get both of those disparate groups to believe that their option was what was being promoted and they managed that spectacularly well.

The Leave campaign was a masterclass in confusing the opposition and producing catchy, memorable and easy to articulate rebuttals to the negative side of their plans. The Remain campaign was an utter disaster led by the sort of people you'd vote against just to see the smug grin knocked off their faces, regardless of what they were promoting. In a way it's amazing the result was as close as it was.

 

[Domh245]

Which is of course unfair to those who do want to leave. Any second referendum would have had to be on the type of Brexit only (which I think is the only fair option that respects the result of the first referendum which was to leave) or would have required some sort of STV mechanism to ensure that the those who want to leave are not disadvantaged by having several options on the ballot but only one remain option to hoover up all the remain votes.

Not at all is still technically a type of brexit
Joking aside, I don't think it would have been unreasonable to offer a remain option. Given the choice of "not the brexit I wanted", "also not the brexit I wanted" and "a third, previously unadvertised and very unpalatable brexit", why shouldn't people have the option of "actually for all it's flaws staying in the EU is preferable". Certainly as a remainer, no leave option would appeal. Even the softest of 'BINO's is a downgrade so how would I show my preference on that second ballot? Continuing to 'respect' the result of the first referendum solely because the winning side managed to be everything to all people despite the fact that there's no clear support for any option would be a pretty stupid move to make - as with the cake analogy if 3 people wanted 'cake' and two wanted vanilla ice cream, you then ask again what sort of cake you should have. It comes back as as one of each for chocolate, fruit, cheesecake and victoria sponge (along with one very irate piece of paper saying that he doesn't want effing cake), you don't keep on insisting that we must have 'a cake' and make everyone unhappy with the result

 

[adrock1976]

When David Cameron announced the referendum, I felt that to actually make things clear cut and avoiding the divisiveness of the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, Cameron should have in the legislation had a clause that stated that for the UK to leave the EU, there has to be at least 75% in favour. Otherwise, the status quo would still remain.

That way, it would be totally clear whether the UK should leave or not. On a side note, I don't know if Cameron was awake or in class at Eton College when the subject of Marxism and trade unions came up. Most (or some) organisations that have directors and/or board members and trade unions I know of have a clause in their constitution that for any constitutional amendments, there has to be at least 75% in favour for it to pass. This would have been Cameron's get out of jail free card had that clause been in the legislation for the referendum.

 

[21C101]

I'm still a bit surprised that the government did not pivot straight to EFTA after the referendum. That still freed up fisheries and EFTA allows certain freedom of movement restrictions that EU membership dosen't (at Leichensteins insistence I recall).

Unfortunately Cameron who would have likely done this went off in a huff and was replaced with May who seemed to have a fixation with immigration.

I think if we had gone for EFTA the majority would have been happy. Most of the EU rules that are "Faxed" to EFTA countries like Norway are in any case "Faxed" to the EU by the UN etc.

EFTA would also allow us to have our own trade deals with RoWorld.

EFTA is also enforced by the EFTA court, which is separate from the notorious European Court of Justice.

Too late now.

 

[ainsworth74]

The simple way around that would be that Remain would only 'win' if it had a supermajority - e.g. three fifths of the total vote.

Which is of course what leave should have had to achieve in the first place but water, bridges and all of that...

Not at all is still technically a type of brexit
Joking aside, I don't think it would have been unreasonable to offer a remain option. Given the choice of "not the brexit I wanted", "also not the brexit I wanted" and "a third, previously unadvertised and very unpalatable brexit", why shouldn't people have the option of "actually for all it's flaws staying in the EU is preferable". Certainly as a remainer, no leave option would appeal. Even the softest of 'BINO's is a downgrade so how would I show my preference on that second ballot? Continuing to 'respect' the result of the first referendum solely because the winning side managed to be everything to all people despite the fact that there's no clear support for any option would be a pretty stupid move to make - as with the cake analogy if 3 people wanted 'cake' and two wanted vanilla ice cream, you then ask again what sort of cake you should have. It comes back as as one of each for chocolate, fruit, cheesecake and victoria sponge (along with one very irate piece of paper saying that he doesn't want effing cake), you don't keep on insisting that we must have 'a cake' and make everyone unhappy with the result

I don't necessarily disagree (and either @najaB's suggestion above or an STV system would have appealed as I'd have been voting Remain) but I rather suspect that getting such a referendum would have been politically impossible. The only one that I think had a cat in hells chance of happening (and even then not much of one as that would probably have come back with a much softer Brexit than the likes of Farage or Rees-Mogg would have liked) would be one in which the only question was flavour of leave not one where not leaving was an option.

I'm still a bit surprised that the government did not pivot straight to EFTA after the referendum. That still freed up fisheries and EFTA allows certain freedom of movement restrictions that EU membership dosen't (at Leichensteins insistence I recall).

Unfortunately Cameron who would have likely done this went off in a huff and was replaced with May who seemed to have a fixation with immigration.

I think if we had gone for EFTA the majority would have been happy. Most of the EU rules that are "Faxed" to EFTA countries like Norway are in any case "Faxed" to the EU by the UN etc.

EFTA would also allow us to have our own trade deals with RoWorld.

EFTA is also enforced by the EFTA court, which is separate from the notorious European Court of Justice.

Too late now.

Agreed, I think that that would have been one of the options that could actually have got the majority of the population (rather than the extremes on both sides) vaguely united (though like all good compromises they'd probably be united in their unhappiness ). Certainly it would have delivered on the instruction to "Leave the EU" but avoids the worst of the economic pain and dislocation.

I suppose a lot of this circles back around to the abjectly awful political leadership we've enjoyed over a number of years now. Politician's that were actually capable might have been able to navigate these choppy waters with some success. Instead we are where we are.

 

[Domh245]

I don't necessarily disagree (and either @najaB's suggestion above or an STV system would have appealed as I'd have been voting Remain) but I rather suspect that getting such a referendum would have been politically impossible. The only one that I think had a cat in hells chance of happening (and even then not much of one as that would probably have come back with a much softer Brexit than the likes of Farage or Rees-Mogg would have liked) would be one in which the only question was flavour of leave not one where not leaving was an option.

I think it would have been possible to run such a referendum back in 2016. Parliament still had a 'remain bias' back then (or at least, the ERG were still just an very vocal fringe group) and such a referendum would have probably been able to garner cross party support. Farage and Rees Mogg could have complained bitterly but complain is all they would have been able to do. I suppose the main issue with it is that it wouldn't 'put the issue to bed' and the Tory party (if not the general public) would remain divided over it, although the country is hardly united as it is anyway

 

[edwin_m]

Which is of course unfair to those who do want to leave. Any second referendum would have had to be on the type of Brexit only (which I think is the only fair option that respects the result of the first referendum which was to leave) or would have required some sort of STV mechanism to ensure that the those who want to leave are not disadvantaged by having several options on the ballot but only one remain option to hoover up all the remain votes.

If the second referendum was choosing options then it would indeed have had to be some sort of STV. But it would have to include a remain option (or be between remain and a single leave option) because the (most popular) leave option might well have been less popular than staying in. Will of the people and all that...

The simple way around that would be that Remain would only 'win' if it had a supermajority - e.g. three fifths of the total vote.

That would be highly unfair as no such condition was imposed on the leave majority in 2016.

 

[21C101]

If Cameron had been cleverer he could have called for a referendum on whether to accept the terms offered by the EU in the pre referendum negotiations he had (which resulted in a poor deal).

Then having had the deal rejected by a large majority in a referendum, gone back to the EU armed with this and said, offer better terms or I hold an In/Out referendum, with it obvious by then that should one take place it had a credible chance of passing.

 

[najaB]

That would be highly unfair as no such condition was imposed on the leave majority in 2016.

I wouldn't see it as unfair since the main purpose of a putative second referendum would be "Do we leave with Option A or Option B?" - the "You know what, let's not bother leaving at all" would necessarily have to have a higher bar than either of the two leave options. If three fifths is too high a bar, then perhaps that it would win if it has an absolute majority rather than being the most popular option?

 

[nlogax]

Things could now be moving in a positive direction. This from writer / journo Alex Andreou who I've found to be a pretty reliable source over the years.

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1339243788578025473

BREAKING: I just received a two-word message from my Commission contact: “Fumée Blanche” (White Smoke). A deal is done.

Edit - and some other sources have been claiming the above is nonsense. Fun times at the EU Corral, glad I said 'could' and not 'are'.

 

[edwin_m]

I wouldn't see it as unfair since the main purpose of a putative second referendum would be "Do we leave with Option A or Option B?" - the "You know what, let's not bother leaving at all" would necessarily have to have a higher bar than either of the two leave options. If three fifths is too high a bar, then perhaps that it would win if it has an absolute majority rather than being the most popular option?

Without any indication of the terms of leaving, a referendum favouring leave should be nothing more than agreement in principle to open negotiations. Would you agree to buy a car without knowing how much it cost, whether it was reliable and whether it suited your needs?

 

[najaB]

Without any indication of the terms of leaving, a referendum favouring leave should be nothing more than agreement in principle to open negotiations.

I agree. However our government has taken it to be the inviolate will of the people to enforce whatever type of Brexit they want to.

 

[Chester1]

Things could now be moving in a positive direction. This from writer / journo Alex Andreou who I've found to be a pretty reliable source over the years.

https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1339243788578025473



Edit - and some other sources have been claiming the above is nonsense. Fun times at the EU Corral, glad I said 'could' and not 'are'.

I have generally found the coverage of British media (on both sides) to be worse than their continental counterparts. There UK media has no interest in the nuances, presumably because their readers just want to be told be brexit will be terrible or terrific. RTE has provided excellent coverage of the details of the process over the last 4 years.

 

[birchesgreen]

I'm still a bit surprised that the government did not pivot straight to EFTA after the referendum. That still freed up fisheries and EFTA allows certain freedom of movement restrictions that EU membership dosen't (at Leichensteins insistence I recall).

Didn't EFTA (or maybe it was Norway?) say they wouldn't want us in as we would be too dominant?

 

[najaB]

Didn't EFTA (or maybe it was Norway?) say they wouldn't want us in as we would be too dominant?

Yes. But we could have negotiated something to make them more comfortable.

 

[21C101]

Yes. But we could have negotiated something to make them more comfortable.

I always assumed Norway's statement was essentially an opening gambit for negotiations.

 

[Chester1]

I'm still a bit surprised that the government did not pivot straight to EFTA after the referendum. That still freed up fisheries and EFTA allows certain freedom of movement restrictions that EU membership dosen't (at Leichensteins insistence I recall).

Unfortunately Cameron who would have likely done this went off in a huff and was replaced with May who seemed to have a fixation with immigration.

I think if we had gone for EFTA the majority would have been happy. Most of the EU rules that are "Faxed" to EFTA countries like Norway are in any case "Faxed" to the EU by the UN etc.

EFTA would also allow us to have our own trade deals with RoWorld.

EFTA is also enforced by the EFTA court, which is separate from the notorious European Court of Justice.

Too late now.

I would have supported it for the medium term. The biggest problem for a single market option was the insistence from parts of the remain campaign (most notably the Govermment) that leave meant leaving the single market. The Govermment refused to plan for a leave vote because it was concerned some of the options might appeal (especially Norway). The responsible option would have been to say (during the campaign) that in the event of a leave win the Govermment would negoiate a Norway style arrangement until end of 2020. It could have had an option to extend by mutual agreement for the next EU budget period (end of 2027). The Conservatives could have campaigned in the May 2020 general election to have a looser agreement but Cameron would have nudged the outcome towards a soft brexit before retiring.

Its worth noting that Lichtenstein's limits on immigration have not been offered to any other country. The EEA FOM rights are looser in some important ways. Its easier for Norway and Switzerland to successfully remove unemployed people and deport criminals. There is a false narrative that the government could have adopted more controls as an EU member but chose not too. Its legally true but there is no point spending thousands to remove EU citizens if they come back within a year or so! EEA gives EU citizens rights to work and study but they don't have the all the rights as they would in EU countries.

Yes. But we could have negotiated something to make them more comfortable.

I always assumed Norway's statement was essentially an opening gambit for negotiations.

EFTA was never an option. Dominant barely begins to describe the UK in an organisation with Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Lichtenstein. A bilateral treaty with the EU for the UK to be in the EEA could have been agreed (it was offered by EU).

 

[VauxhallandI]

I've just read the ministerial comment and executive summary of the new "Transforming public procurement" Green Paper from the Cabinet Office.

I can confirm to you that it is a piece of propaganda which not only insults my intelligence it also insult my profession.

Grand statements that its so transforming whilst stating new things the we already do and benefits such as narrowing our scope for examine the best solutions for the public pound by restricting the pond to UK suppliers!

One of my favourites was insunuitting that at the moment all contracts are awarded at lowest price and we will now be free to appoint by most economically advantages proposal (ie price and quality). I have worked in public procurement for 19 years and Ive not ever awarded a contract on lowest price.

Its amazing to see even when we get to this level the wool is still firmly over the eyes.

This week I have had my first Brexit dividend. A contract albeit small has been awarded to a Dutch company to trial product; as part of that we need a small amount of professional services to implement the software and to ensure we run a correct trial. We need the individual to be Security cleared to SC level due to the sensitivity of information shared in order to carry out this test. We have been informed by central government that no security clearance can be carried out on non-UK residents due to the new rules. Wow, we now have to lift the lid on all our contracts to see where else we are screwed.

Remind me of the benefit of this?

 

[21C101]

I think one of the problems with the current crop of politicians is that for a good while many of the big things have been decided in Europe which both lowers the prestige of being a member of parliament and leaves them time to spend on inconsequential hobbyhorses.

An example being the law mandating 0.7% GDP foreign aid. Regardless of your view on that subject, that law is absurd (essentially Statutory Virtue Signalling) because every budget is primary legislation that can override it.

Now, hit by the double impact of withdrawal from the EU and immediately having to deal with coronavirus, the tide has gone out and who and who isn't competent has been made much more obvious.

I'm sure in time this will result in better candidates, real power attracts more people and those who want an easy time persuing hobbyhorses will get disillusioned and leave as too much of their time will be spent on important but boring things that were previously handled on our behalf by the EU.

 

[DarloRich]

Remind me of the benefit of this?

Soferinty/fish/blue passports/forigns

BTW - your views on that procurement green paper mirror my own. I will spend Xmas having a read of the full document but the summery is, imo, simply a puff piece.

PPS - as you state it will the small things/contractual details that really busternate the job.

 

[alex397]

The government and media continue to obsess over fishing. It’s on the radio news bulletins, on news websites, and ITV Meridian News had a special Brexit edition last night, with fishing coming up a lot. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be talked about, as it still is an important point, but I’ve very rarely heard any of the media outlets challenging the views about fishing from government and the fishing industry - it’s rarely mentioned how small a part of the economy is, and I’d like to hear about other more important sectors. It gives the impression that fishing is one of the most important. It seems to me the government are just encouraging people’s patriotic emotions.

For example, here is a BBC News article . Fishing is mentioned three times.

'Just a few hours' left to agree Brexit trade deal, says Michel Barnier​

There are "just a few hours left" for the UK and EU to agree a post-Brexit trade deal, says Michel Barnier.
Speaking in the European Parliament on Friday, the EU's chief negotiator said it was "the moment of truth" for the two sides to come to an agreement.
He said there was still a "chance" of a deal, but the "path is very narrow".
The comments follow a warning from Boris Johnson that a no deal scenario was "very likely" unless the EU position changed "substantially".
Talks are resuming between the two teams in Brussels after Mr Johnson and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke on Thursday night.
Mrs von der Leyen said bridging "big differences", particularly on fishing rights, would be "very challenging", while the prime minister said discussions were in a "serious situation".
The UK left the EU on 31 January, but has been following the bloc's trade rules while the two sides negotiate a trade deal.
If one is not agreed by 31 December, they will go on to trade on World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, which could see charges introduced on goods being sold and bought - and could lead to an increase in prices.
Mr Barnier said it was the UK that decided on the deadline and the EU would have been willing to extend the so-called transition period into next year so talks could continue.
"If they should leave with an agreement or without, it is nevertheless the Brits that decided on that deadline," he told the European Parliament.
Mr Johnson has insisted the UK will "prosper" with or without a trade deal with the EU.

'Sovereignty'​

The talks taking place in Brussels between Mr Barnier and his UK counterpart, Lord David Frost, are aimed at breaking the deadlock on key issues that remain unresolved.
They include rights to fishing waters from 1 January and what is known as the "level playing field" - where the EU does not want UK businesses to get an unfair advantage by moving away from its rules and standards.
On fishing, Mr Barnier said if the UK wants to use its "sovereignty" over its waters to cut access for EU fisherman, "then the European Union also has to maintain its sovereign right to react or compensate adjusting conditions [to access the] single market".
And on the level playing field, he said there needed to be "fair competition" in place, adding: "If the sovereign United Kingdom would like to depart from those standards, that is their right, but it brings with it consequences when it comes to access to our markets without tariffs or quotas."
In a statement on Thursday, Downing Street said: "We were making every effort to accommodate reasonable EU requests on the level playing field, but even though the gap had narrowed some fundamental areas remained difficult.
"On fisheries, [the PM] stressed that the UK could not accept a situation where it was the only sovereign country in the world not to be able to control access to its own waters for an extended period and to be faced with fisheries quotas which hugely disadvantaged its own industry.
"The EU's position in this area was simply not reasonable and if there was to be an agreement it needed to shift significantly."

It's long been predicted that competition rules and fishing would be the last areas where compromise is found.
For Boris Johnson's government, being tied to EU regulations in perpetuity defeats the purpose of Brexit and makes a mockery of "taking back control".
For the European Union, it will not allow its internal market to be undermined by offering the UK unfair access.
Ursula von der Leyen has claimed the two sides have made a significant step by agreeing to a "strong mechanism" to ensure neither side lowers their environmental or social standards, but are yet to agree on how each could diverge from these levels in the future.
A good number of EU diplomats were quietly confident it was a matter of when, not if, EU access to UK fishing waters could be sorted. But it's proving trickier than they thought.
Sources tell me that Michel Barnier explained to EU ambassadors at the start of this week that if fishing is resolved, then a wider deal would quickly fall into place.
But there's no sign of a meeting of minds on fish, with the EU warning openly it may prove to be impossible.
But let's remember this is the most intense of negotiations and that every public proclamation from London or Brussels will be chosen to strengthening their respective hands in what are the final days and hours of talks.

If a deal is reached between the two sides, it would need to be agreed by parliaments in the UK and EU.
Senior MEPs in the European Parliament have said they will not be "rushed" into signing off a deal on their side, and want to see the text of any agreement by Sunday if they are to approve it by the end of the year.
UK MPs have now finished for the Christmas break, but Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove said on Thursday that they could be called back to ratify a deal in the coming days, were one to be agreed.